Sad Reminder of the dangers of cycling

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Tex wrote:

It is about justice in our view as cyclists.

We really don't want vengeance, as nothing can bring back the dead. However, we want this sort of senseless killing to stop or to be reduced, and unless a public message, namely, even cops who kill cyclists will be prosecuted so watch out, your reluctance to join in, means the public prosecution serves the public best. Nothing will aid the families.

It is unimaginable how you can have ANY reluctance to prosecute under these circumstances. I can fathom NO benefit of not prosecuting in order to protect cyclists.

You're trying to argue mercy, but I wager you only feel this way, because he is a cop. If it were a campaign director for Hillary Clinton, you would have no reservations prosecuting. (Neither would I, that person would deserve double punishment).

Yes, you were sooooo magnanimous in acknowledging prosecution is possible, but you are afraid to prosecute anybody from government so you inject mercy when you wouldn't for others.

Cyclists need protection from these idiots and carelessness.

My opinion has nothing to do with whether he's a cop.

Originally Posted by creekster

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...H7DF.DTL&tsp=1

THe guy apparently said he fell asleep. A few hours into his shift, patrolling in his car, he falls asleep. SO, Tex, is this criminal? Should it be prosecuted? Or do we just say "Hey, stuff happens, don't let the SOB's get you down"?

This whole thing makes me sick.

"Hey, stuff happens, don't let the SOB's get you down"?

You're right, creekster. No hyperbole there. Check back in with me when you're interested in an adult conversation. Otherwise, good night.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

His comment, "MY life is over; MY career is over."

He sure seem concerned about his slaughtered victims.

That bothered me too. I just chalked it up to shock because otherwise it is disgusting.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Spaz

No offense intended, but this is a big pile of bull-hooey.

1. Backlash did, in fact, take place, and is fully evident in this post.
2. Tex NEVER said "he should not be prosecuted". He did, in fact, say "though it would be a remarkable gesture if the families chose not to". Which is true - it would certainly be remarkable. Please don't confuse the issue by putting words in his mouth.
3. The fact that many people would NOT be willing to 'not prosecute' is what makes his statement true - it would be a remarkable gesture.
4. 'called on it once in awhile' != backlash? Interesting logic, that.


You're confusing two separate arguments. On the one hand is the reaction by the families of the unfortunates. On the other is the proper course of discipline to be taken in regards to the perpetrator.

1. You define backlash then. This post is backlash? Tell me how.

2. Did you read the thread? Tex has continued to say one way or the other. That is certainly his right, but it is also my right to find that to be the sort of indecision about cyclists that deserves approbation. Or is this backlash too?

3. It would be remarkable. It would also be wrong, IMO, which is what this is about. I thought I had made that rather clear as well.

4. See number one.

I don't think I confused anything. Tex certainly didn't, and we fully analyzed the difference between the families' input and the state's decision to prosecute. Read the entire thread. You'll see it.

No offense taken or intended, but I think your opinion is based on an incomplete reading of the issues and shows a fialure to grasp what is at stake.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't know all the solutions. Prosecuting offenders is certainly one of them. But not all offenses are equal.

So we agree prosecuting is effective as a solution. You have suggested no others. I can't think of any either.

I think they did. You think they didn't. We are at an impasse.

We are not at an impasse, you are at an impasse with the facts. Either they said it or not. I can't find it in the thread and neither can you apparently. You can think it all you want, but they simply didn't say what you claim they say.

I have acknowleged he can be prosecuted. I have questioned whether doing so is in the best interests of all involved. Can you not "bring yourself" to see the difference?

Socal put a fine point on this. And above you said that prosecution is certainly one solution. So is it or isn't it?

And this is the problem that I have with the attitudes in this thread. It's not really about justice. It's a lot about anger. It's about making someone else suffer as much as they can, because of the suffering they (maybe accidentally) caused on others. It's not just about punishment; it's about kicking them repeatedly while they are down, and filming it for others to watch.

People who "buzz" cyclists are wrong. People who are careless in their cars when cyclists are on the road excercise poor judgment. But there are a lot of accidents caused by both, and not just with cyclists. A lot of damage is done and lives are lost with careless driving in general. In fact, I'm willing to bet car-cyclist deaths are in the extreme minority compared to other kinds of vehicular homicide.

Running around with a personal guillotine, ready to exact your pound of flesh for each of them, is extremely unhealthy in my view.

Running around with a personal guillotine. Hyperbole? You decide.
As I have said ad nauseum. Under the facts as stated, a prosecution, which you agree is certainly one solution, is the only just result here. The sentence might be modified, but a prosecution is called for, plain and simple.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

That was my guess. It's awful for all involved, including the officer. The thing about many of these accidents is that any of us could have been either person. We've all had moments of inattention while driving that could have been costly if we had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. I once pulled a long shift at the sawmill when I was 18 and fell asleep driving home. I didn't even realize I was that kind of tired, I just knew I wanted to get home and get to bed. I woke up in the fast lane after falling asleep in the slow lane and I was headed for the median at 70 mph. I was shocked that such a thing could actually happen so fast. I feel very fortunate that I didn't hurt anyone that day. I've got no problem with prosecuting folks when incidents like these happen, but I'm not convinced that it will change anything as far as cyclists getting hit. I think the vast majority of those incidents have to do with momentary lapses of attention in a very unlucky moment of time.

A fair point. But I think he still needs to be prosecuted. Mitigation can be considered in the sentence.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Tex

"Hey, stuff happens, don't let the SOB's get you down"?

You're right, creekster. No hyperbole there. Check back in with me when you're interested in an adult conversation. Otherwise, good night.

FIrst, assuming you are right and I am being childish, is this how you react to childish positions? By refusing to respond like an adult? Puts us in about the same place, it seems to me.

Second, I will make you a deal, I promise not to use any hyperbole for a month in this or any other thread if you will do the same. Deal? Can you do it? Or would you be unable to do so? Faced with the inconisitencies of your position you simply claim victory (on grounds of legitmate rhetorical devices that you claim not ot like, except for when you use them, of course) and then leave. This is not, I suspect you realize, very persuasive.

Third, you have still been unable or unwillign to state whether or not you would prosecute under the facts as stated, although you did concede that prosecution is "certainly" a solution.

Come back any time and chat, pal. I'll be here

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

So we agree prosecuting is effective as a solution. You have suggested no others. I can't think of any either.

We are not at an impasse, you are at an impasse with the facts. Either they said it or not. I can't find it in the thread and neither can you apparently. You can think it all you want, but they simply didn't say what you claim they say.

Socal put a fine point on this. And above you said that prosecution is certainly one solution. So is it or isn't it?

Running around with a personal guillotine. Hyperbole? You decide.
As I have said ad nauseum. Under the facts as stated, a prosecution, which you agree is certainly one solution, is the only just result here. The sentence might be modified, but a prosecution is called for, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by creekster

FIrst, assuming you are right and I am being childish, is this how you react to childish positions? By refusing to respond like an adult? Puts us in about the same place, it seems to me.

Second, I will make you a deal, I promise not to use any hyperbole for a month in this or any other thread if you will do the same. Deal? Can you do it? Or would you be unable to do so? Faced with the inconisitencies of your position you simply claim victory (on grounds of legitmate rhetorical devices that you claim not ot like, except for when you use them, of course) and then leave. This is not, I suspect you realize, very persuasive.

Third, you have still been unable or unwillign to state whether or not you would prosecute under the facts as stated, although you did concede that prosecution is "certainly" a solution.

Come back any time and chat, pal. I'll be here

*Sigh*

I'm really not trying to ratchet up the rhetoric. We're just going in circles here.

Your chief complaint, it seems, is that I won't say the man "should" be prosecuted, no? Because in your mind (and others'), if he isn't, then it's a guarantee that cyclists everywhere will remain in further danger, no one will ever take the problem of cyclists' deaths seriously, and these 2 people who lost their lives will have done so in vain.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that semi-cataclysmic assessment, anymore than I think that Ruvolo's incessant pushing to get Ryan Cushing's sentence/conviction reduced means that teenagers everywhere will be encouraged to toss frozen turkeys off freeway overpasses.

I seriously doubt that the next sleepy person who drives on a road frequented by cyclists, as he is drifting into slumber, will suddenly snap awake thinking, "Wow, I'd better stay awake because of what happened to that cop they prosecuted!" It's folly to think that one case, one prosecution will change millions of drivers. It's folly to think that MANY cases, and MANY prosecutions will change millions of drivers. Look how much effort has been put into anti-drunk driving efforts. Has it stopped, or even substantially reduced drunk driving? I don't know the stats, but I know it remains a HUGE problem, and one much, much bigger than cyclists' deaths.

Does that mean we don't pass laws, enforce it against offenders, and try to correct the problem? Of course not. But the attitude ought to be finding a way to make peoples' lives better--cyclists and drivers alike--not to exact vengeance and/or create show trials to strike fear into the public.

You could make an example of this man. Just like Ruvolo could have made an example of Cushing. Just like bluegrass toyed with the idea of making an example out of that young mother. And maybe you'd accomplish what you think you would (though I doubt it). Maybe seeing this cop strung up by his thumbs would startle people into behaving themselves while driving by cyclists. Was destroying life of that cop worth it? Destroying Cushing's? That young mother's? And their respective families' lives? Who can make that calculation?

One wonders, too, what effect a very public reconciliation might have. What effect might it have on the public to have this cop go on public television with the families of these slain cyclists, and offer tearful apologies and reconciliation. What if this cop became an advocate for more safe driving habits? Would that do more than a mere conviction and some prison time?

And what about the personal cost? Do you think the families of these cyclists who so mourn their loss, will feel relief when this cop is behind bars? Will that give them respite? Justice? Peace?

...

My original involvement in this thread came as a chiding to Mike Waters after he suggested this cop wanted to "take the cyclists out." Even for Mike, that was over the top, and I said so. And now it appears I was right. In passing, I made the parenthetical comment about how remarkable it would be if forgiveness and mercy were extended--transcending the demands of the law.

And in reply to that very innocent comment, I've received the brunt of the anger and vindictiveness that those of you who cycle carry vis-a-vis this issue. You need to look at yourselves seriously and examine just what kind of freakish baggage you carry that causes you to lash out at people in such a way. I am not being unreasonable, nor am I guilty of the severely immature accusations that have been made of me.

Regards.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

And in reply to that very innocent comment, I've received the brunt of the anger and vindictiveness that those of you who cycle carry vis-a-vis this issue. You need to look at yourselves seriously and examine just what kind of freakish baggage you carry that causes you to lash out at people in such a way. I am not being unreasonable, nor am I guilty of the severely immature accusations that have been made of me.

Regards.

This last paragraph is very whiny.

You simply don't understand the sentiment of the cycling community, and for us it is a very real issue.

Why in the heck did a cop only a few hours into his shift get sleepy? This man was at work and his job requires vigilance. This was a daytime accident.

It seems you're taking a contrarian view just to spite us.

We have several issues here. The rights of cyclists and the demand that police officers be vigilant while on duty. This was not an old cop fatigued by many hours of hard service, but a younger cop who was at the beginning of his shift.

Does that mean his circumstances couldn't be mitigated during sentencing? Of course not, but your persistent attitude that NOT prosecuting him is a possible proper tactic offends the cycling community.

We hope to change the attitude of persons like you that cycling deaths are preventable if drivers are more cautious.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by Tex

And in reply to that very innocent comment, I've received the brunt of the anger and vindictiveness that those of you who cycle carry vis-a-vis this issue. You need to look at yourselves seriously and examine just what kind of freakish baggage you carry that causes you to lash out at people in such a way. I am not being unreasonable, nor am I guilty of the severely immature accusations that have been made of me.

Regards.

Maybe a day on a bike with some 4x4 running you down would change your mind.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

Maybe a day on a bike with some 4x4 running you down would change your mind.

A geek software dude on a bike, now that's funny. That would redefine fear.